report on field research conducted in dadaab … researchindadaab.pdf · in hagadera refugee camp,...

REPORT ON FIELD RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN

DADAAB REFUGEE CAMPS (16.05.05 – 01.06.05)

© Ana Ljubinkovic

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all the Staff of CARE Kenya for

facilitating my stay and research activities in Dadaab Refugee Camps. In particular, I

would like to thank Rosemary Mbaluka And Maryanne Kabaya from the Nairobi office

for their efficiency in handling my request. I am of course thankfull to Muhammad

Qazilbash for staying in the office over time on Friday afternoon in order to make my

traveling possible. June Mwende and Ebla Farah made me feel at home from the first

moment I arrived to Dadaab – thank you! My gratefulness also goes to all the Staff of

CDS Office. I enormously appreciate efforts done by Caroline Wanjiku to organize

groups of interviewees and make them ready for my research, for being so thoughtful and

understanding of the needs of my research. I am also thankful to Caroline’s assistant Mr.

Muhammad for all his help in organizing interviews and dealing with many complex

situations. My appreciation undoubtedly goes to the Care staff in Ifo, Elijoy Karemi,

Musembi Nduva and Abdi Osman for being always at my service.

Undoubtedly, I could never complete my research in Dadaab without my interpreter and

assistant Abdirashid Mohamud Ahmed, assigned to me by June Mwende and John

Mwangi. It was definitely excellent choice. I am thankful to Abdirashid for doing long

hours of interpreting without break, for staying overtime, for working of Sundays, for

missing his meals in order to assist me… But most of all, I am thankful to Abdirashid for

developing a passion for this research and for sharing with me all the emotions that are

part of any researching activity.

Report on Field Research 1

© Ana Ljubinkovic 1

I would also like to thank CARE drivers, particularly Mr. Gabow, Mr Kioko, Mr.

Abdirashid for their incessant availability and readiness to help. I am furthermore grateful

to Ms. Ann and the kitchen team for their politeness and caring.

Finally, my thankfulness and admiration goes to my interviewees who waited for long

hours to be interviewed, who shared with me their most intimate sufferings, who cried

during the interviews - and made me cry – who never asked any compensation and who

trust in me and in my research. I will do my best not to disappoint them.



This research is dedicated to the people of

Ifo and Hagadera Refugee Camps



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Field research conducted in Dadaab Refugee Camps in May/June 2005 is a part of PhD

research entitled “Invisible Victims of Human Rights Crusades: Collateral Effects or the

New Wretched of the World?”. The research aims to explore socio-psychological

consequences of military humanitarian interventions through the study case of

UNOSOM/UNITAF operations in Somalia in 1992-94.

The main objectives of the investigation in Dadaab were to identify the victims of

UNOSOM/UNITAF intervention in Somalia, to identify different types of victimization

and to identify social and psychological consequences of such victimization.

Methodology was flexible and multidimensional, it included in-depth and standard

unstructured interviews, life stories, participant observation, informal conversation,

spending time with people and collection of relevant poems writings and pictures.

The findings of this study show the presence of significant negative effects of the

UNOSOM/UNITAF operations in Somalia. These negative effects can be classified

according to different criteria. The TYPES of victimization include: death, mutilation,

torture, rape, humiliation. According to the INTENTION of the intervening forces, it is

possible to distinguish between intentionally and unintentionally provoked

traumatisation. According to the type and degree of victims involvement, it is possible to

differentiate between witnessing, bereavement and direct involvement. Finally, the

consequences of the negative effects of UNOSOM/UNITAF operations include: physical

disability, mutilation, PTSD, depression, anxiety, “madness”, loss of hope, loss of trust.

It is recommended that individuals, institutions and organisation dealing with Somali

refugees deepen their understanding of different types of traumatisation affecting Somali



people and comprehend socio-psychological and behavioral consequences of such

traumatisation.



INTRODUCTION About CARE Kenya

CARE has operated in Kenya since 1968. As part of Kenyan civil society, CARE has contributed to poverty reduction in the country for 32 years and is among the largest, most reputable and longest serving NGO's.

CARE Kenya is part of CARE Canada, which in turn is one of the 10 National Members of CARE International. CARE International has a presence in over 60 countries, which enables CARE Kenya to be part of the global development force.

Working in close collaboration with partner organizations, the Government and the private sector, CARE Kenya currently incorporates our mission which is to reduce poverty at household levels and to provide relief in emergencies into action. Currently, it has established four sectoral priorities, namely HIV/AIDS; Civil society engagement; Commercialization of smallholder agriculture and Disaster relief and mitigation.

CARE Vision

We seek a world of hope, tolerance and social justice, where poverty has been overcome and people live in dignity and security.

CARE International will be a global force and a partner of choice within a worldwide movement dedicated to ending poverty

Mission and Core Values

Within the CARE International system, CARE Kenya reports to CARE Canada. Over the last 34 years, CARE Kenya has provided humanitarian and development assistance to numerous Kenyan communities. Working in close collaboration with partner organizations and the Government. Our mission is to serve individuals and families in the poorest communities, facilitating lasting change by:

• Strengthening capacity for self-help, • Providing economic opportunity, • Delivering relief in emergencies, • Influencing policy decisions at all levels, and • Addressing discrimination in all its forms.



Over the last 34 years, CARE Kenya has provided humanitarian and development assistance to numerous Kenyan communities. Our core values are justice, excellence, commitment and respect. See the program overviews section for more information.



PROBLEM STATEMENT

No relationship appears to be more paradoxical than that between force, in particular war, and

morality.1 Yet both the use of force and the moral appreciation of human life are among the

most universal characteristics of human societies. In the context of renegotiation between force

and morality the structuring concept of war as “the continuation of politics by other means”2

has largely been replaced by the one of intervention intended as “effective use of limited

force”3 aimed to implement or protect moral concepts such as, for example, human rights.

From the moralist standpoint, however, the use of force appears controversial. Besides

theoretical incompatibility with principal moral assumptions, the use of force often generates

intended, unintended and accidental human victims. In the case of military intervention in the

name of human rights, infliction of human suffering appears even more paradoxical: not only it

questions the moral basis of the use of force; furthermore, by generating human victims,

military humanitarian intervention violates the very subject of human rights: human beings.

The aim of this research is to reveal and analyze practical and theoretical implications of the

paradox embedded in the fact that the use of force in the implementation of human rights

generates human victims. Theoretically, the paradox may be expressed in the following way:

since the subject of human rights is universal, individual, and includes every single human

being, humanitarian intervention that generates human victims violates the very subject of

human rights. At the practical level, the paradox concerns peculiar powerlessness of the

victims of humanitarian intervention: a) difficulty to identify the perpetuator; b) frustration

generated by association of the perpetrator with morality of human rights; c) impossibility of

complaint since human rights are ‘the last resort’4; d) socio-political invisibility since the

victims are often regarded as inevitable ‘collateral effects’ of the humanitarian intervention.

1 For further information see Moore, J. Hard choices : moral dilemmas in humanitarian intervention, Lanham : Rowman & Littlefield, 1998 2 Hassner, P. “From War and Peace to Violence and Intervention: Permanent Moral Dilemmas under Changing Political and Technological Conditions” in Moore, J. Hard choices : moral dilemmas in humanitarian intervention, Lanham : Rowman & Littlefield, 1998: page 11 3 Ibid., page 11 4 See Donnelly, J. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, London: Ithaca, 1989, p.13



OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The main objectives of the study conducted in Ifo and Hagadera were as follows:

- Identify victims of UNOSOM/UNITAF operations in Somalia

- Identify different types of victimization

- Identify social and psychological consequences of the victimization



METHODOLOGY OF STUDY

This study was conducted in two of Dadaab refugee camps, namely Ifo and Hagadera.

The total amount of time spent in research was sixteen days: seven days in Ifo and nine

days in Hagadera. Total amount of 78 people were interviewed.

In accordance with methodological framework of PhD research this study represents a

part of, and in synchrony with the agreement stipulated between CARE Kenya and

myself, the investigating method was multidimensional and flexible rather than rigid and

predetermined. The main techniques included in-depth and standard unstructured

interviews, life stories, participant observation, informal conversation and spending time

with people.

In Ifo Refugee Camp, an introductory meeting with Block and Section leaders was

organized on the first day of the research. Around 30 people participated. Although

nobody of the attendants volunteered to be interviewed after the meeting, the news of the

research was spread by the word of mouth - “afka khadal” – and people who were

affected by UNOSOM/UNITAF started approaching me during the following days.

In Hagadera Refugee Camp, meeting with women group was organized on the first day.

Around 25 - 30 women participated. Eight of them were victims of UNOSOM/UNITAF

and they agreed to be interviewed after the meeting. On the second day, there was

meeting with disabled people. As, expected, many victims of UNOSOM/UNITAF were

found among this group. Some of the participants were interviewed after the meeting

while others were scheduled for the following day. Similarly as in Ifo Camp, once the

news about the research had spread, many more individuals came to me to share their

experience.



Majority of the interviews were recorded on tapes, however, in cases where interviewees

expressed concerns, notes were taken instead of recording. Most of the interviews were

conducted with the help of interpreter except in few cases of respondents fluent in

English. The tapes will later be transcribed and translated.



STUDY FINDINGS

The results of this study demonstrate presence of numerous negative effects of

UNOSOM/UNITAF military humanitarian intervention conducted in Somalia between

1992 and 1994. These negative effects include wide varieties of both psychological and

physical traumas that can be classified in different ways. The following three

classifications appear most relevant to the scope of this study.

Firstly, the negative effects can be classified according to the type of victimization.

Within this category, it is possible to distinguish between following types of

victimization:

- DEATH: by bombing, by gun bullets, by fire caused by bombing, as a result of rape;

- MUTILATION: by bombing, by gun bullets, by knife, by fire caused by bombing;

- TORTURE: by electricity, beating, detention etc.

- RAPE: of both women and men

- HUMILIATION: wide variety of humiliating practices such as urinating on people and

their food, verbal humiliation, sexual humiliation, etc.

- INTELECTUAL HUMILIATION: self-interest instead of humanitarian assistance;

Second classification of the negative effects of UNOSOM/UNITAF operations may be

distinguished according to the intention of intervening forces. Whether we talk about

pure disillusionment, psychological trauma or mutilation, in most of the cases victims are



able to distinguish between intentionally and unintentionally provoked suffering. Among

the most common examples of unintentionally provoked sufferings are:

- Being caught in crossfire between UNOSOM/UNITAF troops and the Somali militia;

- Being accused of espionage and persecuted by Somali militia as a result of working for

UNOSOM/UNITAF;

Among the most common intentionally provoked sufferings are: killing, deliberate

mutilation, torture, rape of both women and men, deliberate humiliation, enticement to

prostitution.

Another classification of the negative effects of UNOSOM/UNITAF operations can be

structured around the criterion of the degree and type of the victim’s involvement. This

classification could include categories such as:

- WHITNESSING - of killing, torture, rape, mutilation, humiliation;

- BEREAVEMENT - loss of a close family member

- DIRECT VICTIM - of torture, rape, mutilation, humiliation

An accurate analysis of socio-psychological and physical consequences of negative

impacts of UNOSOM/UNITAF intervention in Somalia goes far beyond the framework

of this research. In brief, however, it can be said that most of the victims interviewed in

the course of this study present signs of different types of trauma.

SEQUENTIAL TRAUMATISATION – the concept developed by Hans Keilson in 1977

in his important follow up study of Jewish war orphans in the Netherlands. Keilson‘s

concept implies a radical change in the understanding of traumatic disorder. Trauma is no

longer seen as an event that provokes certain consequences, but rather “as a process in

which the description of the changing traumatic situation is the framework that organizes

our understanding of trauma.”5 This is extremely important in explaining why trauma

5 Becker



continues, even when the active persecution has stopped. We are thus able to understand

not only why patients might develop symptoms immediately after the original traumatic

event, but also why they might do so twenty, thirty or forty years later. Finally, Keilson‘s

concept illustrates that, since there is no ‚post‘ in trauma but only a continuing traumatic

process, the individuals who deal with trauma victims are also always part of the

traumatic situation and do not operate outside of it. One of the advantages of Keilson‘s

concept is that it can easily be used in different cultural and political settings.

BETRAYAL TRAUMA - The term ‘betrayal trauma’ can be used to refer to a kind of

trauma that occurs when the people or institutions we depend on for survival violate us in

some way.” The phrase ‘Betrayal Trauma theory’ is generally used to refer to the theory

about the cause of unawareness and amnesia. Betrayal Trauma theory can be defined as

“a theory that predicts that degree to which a negative event represents a betrayal by a

trusted needed other will influence the way in which this event is processed and

remembered.”6 According to Jennifer Freyd who first introduced the terms ‘betrayal

trauma’ and ‘betrayal trauma theory’ in 1991, “a betrayal of trust produces conflict

between external reality and a necessary system of social dependence.” Betrayal, as

humiliation, may appear alone or in combination with other traumatic elements. A

particular event, such as rape for instance, can be simultaneously a betrayal trauma and a

humiliation.

HUMILIATION TRAUMA - Humiliation theory has been developed very recently by

Evelin Lindner in the context of Humiliation Studies founded at the University of Oslo.

In her numerous papers on the subject, Lindner claims that, although it has been widely

neglected by the academic community, the feeling of humiliation is actually one of the

most powerful human emotions. To be humiliated is to be placed, against your will and

often in a deeply hurtful way in a situation that is much worse, or much ‘lower,’ than

what you feel you should expect.7 Humiliation entails demeaning treatment that

transgresses established expectations. It may involve acts of force, including violent

6 Freyd 7 Lindner



force. At its heart is the idea of pinning down, putting down or holding against the

ground. Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of humiliation as a process is that the

victim is forced into passivity, acted upon, and made helpless.8 On the basis of her

extensive field research in Somalia, Rwanda and Cambodia, Lindner concludes that

intense and profound forms of humiliation often provoke traumatic consequences on the

victims. According to Lindner, it is possible to draw a continuum that maps out the

transition from ‘pure’ trauma to trauma that is precisely traumatic because it is perceived

as humiliation. It is important to note that within this continuum, the intentional, men

made trauma is regarded as the most extreme type of traumatic experience. The results of

Lindner’s research suggest that the presence of humiliation within traumatic event

coincides with higher rate of PTSD when compared to trauma without humiliation.

Among other theories that can be useful for understanding long-term negative effects of

UNOSOM/UNITAF operations in Somalia might be the concept of trans-generational

trauma.

It is clear that the above mentioned types of trauma do not exclude each other and can

often happen contemporarily. Especially among the people who suffer disability due to

UNOSOM/UNITAF abuses.

Finally, among the most commonly reported effects of UNOSOM/UNITAF provoked

victimization are:

- PHYSICAL DISABILITY

- PTSD

- DEPRESSION (“Murug”)

- ANXIETY (“Fikir”)

- “MADNESS” (“Waali”)

- LOSS OF HOPE

- LOSS OF TRUST

8 Lindner



RECOMMENDATIONS

The nature of this study implies that relevant recommendations should be addressed to

the policy makers and implementing agents of military humanitarian interventions.

However, some important recommendations can be addressed to all individuals,

organizations and institutions interested in dealing with and assisting victims of military

humanitarian interventions. The following recommendations are a direct result of my

investigation of both refugee population and the employees of CARE Kenya in Dadaab.

Since the beginning of my research, I have been informally asked numerous times by

different employees of CARE Kenya about main findings of my research. After few

initial explanatory sentences, I have been – in almost 100% of the cases- interrupted by a

question “How do you know it’s true?” The question was – again in almost 100% of the

cases – accompanied by non-verbal signs and body language showing disbelief and

skepticism.

In the first place, this question obviously confirms my hypothesis stated in the problem

statement (page 5) that victims of military humanitarian interventions are surrounded by

social and political invisibility.

In the second place, this question is a symptom of different defense mechanisms, mainly

denial, developed by the employees in order to cope with emotionally harsh working

conditions. These defense mechanisms, if not addressed properly, are destined to

contribute to sequential traumatisation of the victims and vicious circle of mistrust

between refugees and CARE employees.



In order to contrast such negative developments, my main recommendations include:

- Organization of workshops and seminars for all CARE employees on the topics of

trauma and effects of trauma;

- Counseling for CARE employees, especially those working directly with the refugee

community;

- Putting in act different small actions aimed to minimize the gap between “Us” and

“Them”, such as learning few words of Somali language;

- Understanding that Somali culture and Religion do not represent a threat or a rival to

one’s own beliefs: if Somali refugees sometimes appear exceedingly persistent in the

defense of their culture, it is mainly because for many of them, after 14 years of refugee

life, culture is the only thing that keeps their identity and self-esteem alive;

Finally, I will answer the question “How do I know it’s true?”. Three answers can be

offered in this regard, one coming from the field research, one coming from the historical

records and one coming from the theory.

Although it is likely that more than one account of my interviewees contains distortions

and exaggerations, I think that majority of information collected actually corresponds to

the material reality. Interviews as well as informal conversations offered very precise and

accurate descriptions of the victimization. Furthermore, the interviewees present

surprisingly elaborate degree of differentiation between deeds and behaviors of different

agents. In first place there is clear differentiation between acting of different nationality

groups encompassed in UNOSOM operations. Secondly, there is differentiation between

different agents such as NGO’s, military personnel, Somali militia etc. Interviewees were

able to give detailed and diversified descriptions of different agents present in Somalia.

In second place, some of the abuses committed by UNOSOM troops in Somalia are

documented in from of photographs, reports and articles.



Thirdly, the issue of credibility dissolves in the social theories postulating that objectivity

and subjectivity are neither apart nor antagonistic: each provides the standard against

which the other is recognized and defined.9 It is exactly the divergence between factual,

objective reality and subjective perception, memory and interpretation that provides us

with most precious indicators regarding both spheres. According to Alessandro Portelli,

subjective distortions and alterations of factual reality allow us to recognize the interest

of the tellers, the dreams and desires beneath them. We can take this claim a step further

and argue that conscious or unconscious motivation for such distortions may have its

roots precisely in the hidden elements of the factual reality. In other words, only through

distorted narrative can subjective worlds be discovered and hidden objective truths

revealed. Portelli is very much right when he asserts that ‘wrong’ story tells us much

more about factual reality than the ‘right’ story.

9 Portelli, A. The death of Luigi Trastulli, and other stories : form and meaning in oral history, Albany, N.Y. : State University of New York Press, c1991



LIMITATIONS

- Insufficient time (due to this constraint it was not possible to conduct the research in

Dagahaley)

- Language barrier

- Climatic condition

- Technical problems with recording equipment



APPENDICE

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

I. PERSONAL BACKGROUND 1. When and where were you born? 2. What are you clan and tribe? 3. What are your first childhood memories? 4. Who were you living with during childhood? 5. Could you describe your father? 6. What was your father’s occupation? 7. Can you describe your mother? 8. What are the values your parents taught you? 9. Were your parents religious? 10. Were they interested in politics? 11. How many brothers/sisters do you have? Older or younger? 12. Tell me about your education, which schools have you attended? 13. When did you leave Somalia? 14. Why did you decide to leave Somalia? II. SOMALIA – GENERAL HISTORY



15. Could you tell me a brief history of Somalia? 16. What is according to you the best period in Somali history? 17. What was the worst event? 18. Please describe the government of Siad Barre? 19. What kind of person was Siad Barre? 20. Did Siad Barre ever receive support from any foreign country? 21. Was there any opposition to Siad Barre in Somalia? 22. What happened after Siad Barre was overthrown? 23. Was there any reaction of foreign countries? III. ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION PRIOR TO ITS OCCURRENCE 24. Where were you when you first heard about possibility of foreign intervention in Somalia? 25. How did you feel about it? What did you think? 26. Were you supporting the idea of intervention or you were against it? 27. Why? 28. What did other people think? 29. Which groups/tribes in Somalia were supporting the intervention and which were against it? IV. PERCEPTION OF US DECISION MAKING PROCESS LEADING TO INTERVENTION 30. Who was the US president at the time when US decided to intervene in Somalia? 31. What was his motivation to intervene?



32. What were other people thinking was his motivation? 33 What was the official explanation? 33. Do you believe that US decided to intervene for humanitarian reasons? V. PERCEPTION OF THE EVENTS ON THE GROUND DURING THE INTERVENTION 34. Where were you when the intervention started? 35. What was our major source of information during that time? (For those who were not in Somalia) 36. What was this source saying about the intervention? 37. Did you have contacts with anybody in Somalia during that time? What were they saying about the intervention? 38. Was there any difference between official representation and people’s perception? 39. What was the intervention officially aiming to do? What was the strategy? 40. Was it according to you a good objective and was it a good strategy to achieve it? 40. Was the official strategy really implemented? 41. What were the soldiers mostly doing? 44. Did the soldiers have preference for some tribes/clans to the others? 45. If yes, how did this affect inter-clan relations? VI. PERCEPTION OF SOLDIERS 46. Where were majority of intervening soldiers coming from? 47. Was there any difference in soldiers’ behavior according to their nationality? 48. How were soldiers behaving towards Somali population, what was soldiers-civilians relationship?



49. Did people like intervening soldiers? 50. Who were US soldiers who came to Somalia, can you describe them, what type of people were they? 51. What was according to you their motive to come? 52. What were they doing when in service and how did they spend their free time? 53. Have you ever heard about stories of soldiers collecting sand, rocks, wildlife? What do you think about those stories? 54. Have you ever heard of any abuses done by intervening soldiers? 55. What were people doing in such cases? Was there any possibility of complaint? VII. AFTERMATH – GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 56. Did the intervention help at all? 57. What were the major problems of the intervention? 58. Were these problems/mistakes a result of general strategy or of soldiers’ incapability? 59. Is it important for people who receive intervention to know what the real motive of the intervener is? 60. Do you think that even if motive of the intervener is self-interest, the intervention can still have good results?

report on field research conducted in dadaab … researchindadaab.pdf · in hagadera refugee camp,...

Documents